Reply #17: one o' those jurisdictional things [View All]

[iverglas]

In Canada, inmates in federal and provincial correctional institutions may vote, the Supreme Court of Canada having decided that imprisonment (let alone conviction for a crime) is not sufficient justification for interfering in the exercise of such a fundamentally important right, "in a free and democratic society", as the right to vote (the words used in the Cdn Constitution).

In most US states, not only are inmates denied the vote, but people on parole are denied the vote (and sometimes even people who have completed parole? although that becomes moot when things like drug possession entail lifetime parole ...).

Of course, some US states also kill people who are convicted of crimes; Canada and all other reasonable facsimiles of free and democratic societies do not. Different notions of what constitutes justification for violating rights; no universal agreement on how the principles apply. But heck, even if there might be some justification for executing people who kill people, I've never seen the justification for allowing private citizens to execute people who break into their homes.

I think you can use deadly force in: 1, any home invasion; ...

That is indeed so in some (not all) US jurisdictions. It definitely ain't so in Canada (where the law calls those things "breaking and entering a dwelling house", leaving "invasion" to be used for things to which it more accurately applies, like uninvited military incursions into someone else's country).

40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.


41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

And that -- when the trespasser has committed an assault -- is when, and only when, "self-defence" comes into it, and then the self-defence rules apply: only the force necessary, and if grievous bodily harm or death is caused to the trespasser, there must have been reasonable grounds for the person defending him/herself to have believed s/he would otherwise suffer grievous bodily harm or death, and s/he must have reasonably believed there was no other way of averting grievous bodily harm or death.

The trespasser's presence in one's home does not necessarily, of itself, give reasonable grounds for believing one is going to suffer grievous bodily harm or death, and does not obviate the requirement that one reasonably believe there is no other way of avoiding grievous bodily harm or death before causing the trespasser grievous bodily harm or death. Breaking into a house does not in itself, necessarily meet the definition of assault: "attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose". Lots and lots of people break into houses and assault no one, and leave (or would be happy to leave) upon encountering someone who tells them to.

Nope, up here there will be no killing, or grievous injuring, of "home invaders". Not unless they have done something that constitutes an assault.

We have the notion that allowing people to kill or grievously injure burglars who have not committed an assault, and who could not be reasonably believed to be about to commit an otherwise unavoidable injury or death, would be a violation of their right to life.

I can kinda understand how it would have been justified at one time to allow farmers to kill livestock rustlers, since farmers might starve if people rustled their livestock, back when there were no food stamps. But I haven't yet understood how allowing the shooting of burglars on sight could possibly be justified in a society that recognizes and protects the right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process, and the right to the equal protection of the law.

.